| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Law. Chaos. Good. Evil.
Yes, those concepts do exist outside of the game. But, for the most part, they are defined very, VERY, differently from how they are defined in the game rules system. For example...
Out of game:
cha·os /ˈkāäs/ Noun - Complete disorder and confusion. / Behavior so unpredictable as to appear random, owing to great sensitivity to small changes in conditions.
cha·ot·ic /kāˈätik/ Adjective - In a state of complete confusion and disorder.
In game:
Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility.
Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.
Those are not the same concepts. The definitions in game are not the same as the definitions in life. (I will concede that Good and Evil are closer, though still definitely not the same. Consider how much killing your "Good" characters do in this game.) We can definitely discuss these concepts beyond the Pathfinder or d20 rules. But, we will be having a different conversation than this one. This one is about these concepts in the Pathfinder RPG rules system.
As all of the people in this thread seem quite knowledgeable about paladins I would love some feedback on some of my homebrew, here.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We don't have to speculate about chaotic people in the real world. All we have to do is look at how they are portrayed in the game world. And I just picked up the NPC Codex.
Malachi's argument is that if a chaotic person
(1) Has a job with a boss
(2) Serves in the military
then they are submitting to an authority who judges their actions, and that this disproves ciretose's argument that a chaotic person may not submit to an authority.
So if we find a character defined as Chaotic within the Paizo-published NPC Codex for PF (Jason Buhlman, SKR, and JJ as lead designer/designer/creative director), then we have demonstrated that a chaotic person within PF can submit to an authority.
(1) Job with boss: Miner, Barmaid, Shopkeeper (p 256-257), Old Sailor (p 260)
(2) Serves in Military: Grizzled Mercenary, Aloof Archer (p 268, 269)
Additionally, the Profane General, Daredevil Hunter, Skilled Sniper, and Deadly Spy do specific jobs as mercenaries / hired adventurers and must be able to accept direction from their employers or else they will not get paid. Even the Chain Mauler, described as actually being insane, will take orders from her cult leaders.
Conclusion: A chaotic person, defined by PF's use of the term "chaotic," can submit to an authority if they choose to accept the specific authority.
Add to this the apparent consensus that a paladin wants to act in the way his code dictates because he believes in the values specified by the code (which would mean a code would not be at all onerous for a CG paladin), and my above argument that a paladin is not actually being actively judged by an authority but is simply an ideal conduit for the powers of good (as a result of their exceedingly virtuous and self-sacrificing actions), and I don't see how you can characterize a nonlawful paladin as nonsensical or logically impossible.
I don't see how you can characterize a nonlawful paladin as nonsensical or logically impossible.
But... these go to eleven!
Add to this the apparent consensus that a paladin wants to act in the way his code dictates because he believes in the values specified by the code (which would mean a code would not be at all onerous for a CG paladin), and my above argument that a paladin is not actually being actively judged by an authority but is simply an ideal conduit for the powers of good (as a result of their exceedingly virtuous and self-sacrificing actions), and I don't see how you can characterize a nonlawful paladin as nonsensical or logically impossible.
It is not nonsensical or logically impossible, it's just not in the flavour a paladin has. It's not just the code that makes a paladin lawful, it's the entire discipline he has to follow to become an example for others.
For example: i can totally see a CG character taking part in acts terrorism, aimed to specifically avoid victims, to overthrow an evil slaver government... but i can't see a paladin doing even that kind of terrorism, even for a greater good, because the paladin knows that the aim sometimes can't justify the means and he should find other ways because terrorism is not an exemplar one.
And that's the flavour of the paladin, and that's what people arguing "paladins are only LG" feel. You can't conceive a class that aims to become an "example of good and virtues" who's chaotic.
Cayden Cailean was a great nice guy, he had a code he followed strictly and he was just and fair... But if someone tells me he was an example of virtues for others i would laugh in his face... He had virtues, for sure, but he was not an example to others... Why? He too the Starstone Test because he was so high he couldn't think straight! He's more crazy than the guy who gets drunk and jumps off a 200 feet cliff in the sea and manages to land without dying... He was lucky, and a lucky guy can't be taken as a role model.
Paladins get their power because they have to BE the virtuous all around, not just because the follow some words on a paper (i suppose the code must be written somewhere... they should swear on it when they get ordained).
You want an "official" CG sacred warrior? Great, i like that, and you can call it Freedom Fighter, Liberator, CG Battle Cleric Mark II, Benn'joon or else... But you have to give him his own original class feature, because if it's just a rework on the paladin to remove the lawful requirement you're just cheating your way to get their power, and that i can't accept (and that's one of the reasons why i hate the Chevalier prestige class, but this is not the time and place).
if it's just a rework on the paladin to remove the lawful requirement you're just cheating your way to get their power, and that i can't accept.
Let's run with this for a second.
Most people who understand the math underlying the game rules will agree that the wizard, at higher levels, is FAR more powerful than the paladin. If you don't agree, that's fine; say so and the answer to everything else is N/A for you.Accepting that premise, though, we have a conundrum: wizards have no code to balance their greater power. Do they need one, then? Like, maybe if they don't wear robes with stars on them and pointy hats, they lose all their powers? Because otherwise, the designers have created a class that is expressly allowed to cheat its way to the power of the "real" point-hat wizards.
Hopefully you can see where this is going: the wizard class is supposedly balanced with the other classes in terms of its actual class features. The paladin class, being less powerful than the wizard, is therefore balanced (or slightly underbalanced) with the other classes in terms of its actual class features -- code or no code.
If you insist on the code as "fluff" that defines the class, that's OK. No one can argue that that view is "wrong" in any way. However, an argument that the code is actually serves a needed game-mechanics purpose to balance the class' mechanics/power/class features? That's factually incorrect.
Fluff isn't a very good balance for power. Mechanics are hard to argue. Fluff on the other hand varies from person to person.
I feel like someone just said Cayden didn't deserve to be a god or something. The joy of good hearted freedom isn't that awful of a thing is it? He's also the god of bravery and fights oppresion. Are those things I shouldn't look up to?
Let's run with this for a second.
Most people who understand the math underlying the game rules will agree that the wizard, at higher levels, is FAR more powerful than the paladin. If you don't agree, that's fine; say so and the answer to everything else is N/A for you.Accepting that premise, though, we have a conundrum: wizards have no code to balance their greater power. Do they need one, then? Like, maybe if they don't wear robes with stars on them and pointy hats, they lose all their powers? Because otherwise, the designers have created a class that is expressly allowed to cheat its way to the power of the "real" point-hat wizards.
Hopefully you can see where this is going: the wizard class is supposedly balanced with the other classes in terms of its actual class features. The paladin class, being less powerful than the wizard, is therefore balanced (or slightly underbalanced) with the other classes in terms of its actual class features -- code or no code.
If you insist on the code as "fluff" that defines the class, that's OK. No one can argue that that view is "wrong" in any way. However, an argument that the code is actually serves a needed game-mechanics purpose to balance the class' mechanics/power/class features? That's factually incorrect.
I was talking about flavour non power balance. Maybe i used the expression "cheating your way to get their power" improperly and if that's so, i'm sorry i wasn't clear from the start. The wording was not about their power's level but about their power's flavour. For what it's worth, don't think removing paladin code would make them that much more powerful... But it would make them much more meaningless.
I feel like someone just said Cayden didn't deserve to be a god or something. The joy of good hearted freedom isn't that awful of a thing is it? He's also the god of bravery and fights oppresion. Are those things I shouldn't look up to?
Never said he didn't deserve to be a god, i said he didn't deserve to become a paladin (read as "a role model to every person living in a working and peaceful society"), just as someone following him isn't. It's not because he didn't held thing that was worth fighting for, i'm saying the opposite. But if i had to choose how i would educate my son to grow up as a good, humble and educated person, i would give him the code of conduct of a paladin, not Cayden's biography.
EDIT: Just one more clarification. If the main point of roleplay was just about balance, everyone in the campaign setting would be the exact same race and class, with the exact same build. The campaign setting should be more about flavour, and then try as hard as it can to balance... But that's just my opinion.
Hmmm... New paladin question! Do paladins hate or look down upon freedom? Its in an opposite square on the 9 alignments.
Their power does nothing against anarchy. Their flavor is fighting bad guys and being courageous. What flavor keeps them from being chaotic?
Hilariously, I've roleplayed a person raised by Calistria worshippers and another raised by Cayden worshippers. Thats actually a lot of fun. I'm not going to judge any of it though, different cultures and whatnot. Neither were evil and the Cayden follower certainly wasn't out to start a mess. Fight bad guys and tyranny sure.
Hmmm... New paladin question! Do paladins hate or look down upon freedom? Its in an opposite square on the 9 alignments.
Their power does nothing against anarchy. Their flavor is fighting bad guys and being courageous. What flavor keeps them from being chaotic?
Hilariously, I've roleplayed a person raised by Calistria worshippers and another raised by Cayden worshippers. Thats actually a lot of fun. I'm not going to judge any of it though, different cultures and whatnot. Neither were evil and the Cayden follower certainly wasn't out to start a mess. Fight bad guys and tyranny sure.
Paladins have nothing against freedom as long as it's "good" freedom, and your freedom doesn't mean you can be at the expenses of someone else.
To become a paladin it's not just about being good. It's about having dedication, devotion, discipline, endurance. You have to train body and soul. You have to be perfect to always be the example others can follow. It's like taking a vow to perfection, goodness and against evil and dedicating your whole life at it. It should be stressful like few other things in life. And i think the dedication required is inevitably brought by a lawful personality, just as a monk (the ony archetipe who is not lawful is because of obvious flavour reasons). A neutral person would just say "why should i waste my life like that?" and a chaotic would say "why would anyone waste his life like that???".
Paladin has nothing against chaos (as seen by the fact that their powers can't hurt chaotic people and they can associate with them), it's just that paladinhood is not a thing for non-lawful people.
Your pushing your fluff on other people now I think. Your idea of who a Paladin is and what he's capable of. Also what the neutral good and chaotic good people are capable of. Don't get me started on monks, off topic and I have a major dislike that they can only be lawful. Its unaccepting of the many ways to live life and acheive the same goal.
There is no mechanic specific to law vs chaos for the Paladin. Only a code of conduct. Good vs. evil is much more common and less complicated, so thats not neccesarily a bad thing.
Your pushing your fluff on other people now I think. Your idea of who a Paladin is and what he's capable of. Also what the neutral good and chaotic good people are capable of. Don't get me started on monks, off topic and I have a major dislike that they can only be lawful. Its unaccepting of the many ways to live life and acheive the same goal.
There is no mechanic specific to law vs chaos for the Paladin. Only a code of conduct. Good vs. evil is much more common and less complicated, so thats not neccesarily a bad thing.
I'm not pushing anyone, i'm just saying what i read in the paladin (it's my interpretation, but is based on what is written) and explaining why i think thing should stay that way officially. But it's my opinion. If you want to homerule things, you're free to do as you wish.
I just don't like people pushing so hard to change official (great) fluff on behalf of a concept i don't see fitting with the paladin (based on what i'm reading on the concept of the class) when they can just houserule it and go on their way.
You can say my view of the paladin is right, you can say is wrong, you can say you get what i mean but you don't agree. And you will give me your reason... And maybe you'll change my idea... Maybe me explaining my reasons will change yours. Who knows? That's why i'm posting here: to compare ideas and opinion.
Last, if you get started the lawful monk, i could get started on how i don't agree on Chevaliers, non-paladins, getting smite evil, because it doesn't take in consideratione all the dedication to a cause you need, to be able to first judge and then smite the evil you ecounter (instead of just being used as "you bad guy, me good guy, so i can smite you"... It shouldn't work that way, or any good character should get smite).
But if we get started we could go on forever and ever, so i'll just say:
These is why i think things should stay the way they are, now [people on these boards] explain me why you think i'm wrong, what i'm neglecting, why things should be different. I'm here for confrontation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are 38 more pages of people on these boards explaining why they think things should be different.
Go back and read those.
It doesn't infer that its just your interpretation very well when you then tell me I'm the one making houserules. Your pushing it when you become unaccepting and say it shouldn't be any other way.
I guess I can try to tell you its another way, but your against anyone who doesn't have LG or conduct becuase you think you absolutely need dedication to a cause. If I said chaotics could be dedicated what would you think?
I think chaotics can totally be dedicated. They hail freedom and fight tyranny when it rears its ugly head, sure sometimes that means breaking the law but the tyrants are the ones making the rules and sometimes you just can't stand for that! Fight against oppresion and slavery, against the despot overtaxing the people and all into war! against the LE general and his armies of undead. I have a dedication, its against the unjust ways of the wicked and I'm more than willing to take a stand and smite them! He's the young hero who dashes into the conflict to save the day! He breaks tradition and doesn't always agree with his elders, but he knows what he's doing is right!
That a good way to put it? Is that man unable to be a role model, unable to stand up for the weak and smite evil where it stands?
|
We are discussion the rules, not what you want the rules to be.When the topic is chaotic paladins, it goes without saying that we are talking either hypothetically or about potential rule changes.
Chaotic Paladins are an oxymoron given the definition of Paladin and the Definition of Chaotic. It makes as much sense as Lawful Insurrection.The American Civil War began in lawful fashion. Each state ratified an ordinance of secession, formally leaving the United States. President Buchanan saw no constitutional justification for preventing this, but Lincoln was willing to fight over it.
"I shall never bear arms against the Union, but it may be necessary for me to carry a musket in the defense of my native state, Virginia, in which case I shall not prove recreant to my duty." -- Robert E. Lee
"Obedience to lawful authority is the foundation of manly character." -- Robert E. Lee
First, the American Civil War did not begin in a Lawful fashion. Major fail whatever History teacher you had. The seizure of Federal Property is not lawful, and they fired on the Star of the West while Buchanan was still in office...
Second, the topic isn't chaotic paladins, since those can't exist. The topic has changed since the OP (I know, I wrote the OP) but the topic is not about something that cannot exist in the game.
You may argue it is about why they can't exist, or why the rule should change, but chaotic paladins don't exist in the ruleset, only in house rules.
There are 38 more pages of people on these boards explaining why they think things should be different.
Go back and read those.
These is why i think things should stay the way they are, now [people on these boards] explain me why you think i'm wrong, what i'm neglecting, why things should be different. I'm here for confrontation.
If you are bored with the topic, don't read it anymore.
It doesn't infer that its just your interpretation very well when you then tell me I'm the one making houserules. Your pushing it when you become unaccepting and say it shouldn't be any other way.
If someone replies and tells me my way is a houserule, demonstrating me why my interpretation of the rules should be unofficial, i will be more than happy to accept it. I'm not saying it couldn't be any other way, i'm saying that it is this way, and it's great as it is. If someone proves me it is not this way, or provides good reasons i can agree with that a paladin should ba any good alignment i'll be more than happy to change my mind on the subject.
I think chaotics can totally be dedicated. They hail freedom and fight tyranny when it rears its ugly head, sure sometimes that means breaking the law but the tyrants are the ones making the rules and sometimes you just can't stand for that! Fight against oppresion and slavery, against the despot overtaxing the people and all into war! against the LE general and his armies of undead. I have a dedication, its against the unjust ways of the wicked and I'm more than willing to take a stand and smite them! He's the young hero who dashes into the conflict to save the day! He breaks tradition and doesn't always agree with his elders, but he knows what he's doing is right!
That a good way to put it? Is that man unable to be a role model, unable to stand up for the weak and smite evil where it stands?
The guy you describe could totally be a LG paladin who puts good above law (as it should be fluff wise), what does he add to the concept that he needs a CG paladin to be used efficiently?
I'm not saying chaotic people don't have dedication, i'm saying they don't have the sufficient amount of endurance, discipline, dedication, devotion and so on to train for years under regimes of privations and sacrifice and meditation to qualify as a paladin, especially when they could be already out there beating bad guys.
Now that i think about it, i could say my reason of "paladins are LG" is because i don't see NG or CG characters as people training in paladin order's monasteries for years just because they need to be "rightfully deemed worthy of judging and smiting bad guys" before doing it instead of going there and start working on a way to beat them as soon as possible. Is my vision wrong? Why?
The guy you describe could totally be a LG paladin who puts good above law (as it should be fluff wise), what does he add to the concept that he needs a CG paladin to be used efficiently?
I'm not saying chaotic people don't have dedication, i'm saying they don't have the sufficient amount of endurance, discipline, dedication, devotion and so on to train for years under regimes of privations and sacrifice and meditation to qualify as a paladin, especially when they could be already out there beating bad guys.
Now that i think about it, i could say my reason of "paladins are LG" is because i don't see NG or CG characters as people training in paladin order's monasteries for years just because they need to be "rightfully deemed worthy of judging and smiting bad guys" before doing it instead of going there and start working on a way to beat them as soon as possible. Is my vision wrong? Why
Okay... This will rough to respond to but I'll try again.
The guy I described could be a lot of things. He could be a terrorist or a freedom fighter. He could be burning down the establishment or fighting evil in their own house. He could be that man in every other anime I watched as a kid who just didn't play by the rules but always meant well and tried his best. Plenty of shounen heroes trained under strict disciplines and still fought dirty and meant well.
Your sorta did. You said that chaotic and neutrals aren't capable of being a paladin becuase of it. A chaotic good character might fight to the last gasping breath for freedom and might have worked his whole love of his people while practicing sword and magic to protect his people. He can still worship, there are plenty of chaotic gods who embody the ideals of chaos and have worshippers. I think a chaotic character can spend his time preparing to take down the establishment or whatever his goals are. I don't see how these characters don't have dedication and endurance.
I didn't know Paladins had to graduate from Paladin school. If they have to go through all those hoops, can you explain to me how fighters learn to discipline themselves with swords beyond all others or clerics can spend all their time praying and becoming closer to the divine and wizards in spell books without being lawful? Are they less disciplined by such a great divide? How about anti-paladins?
The guy I described could be a lot of things. He could be a terrorist or a freedom fighter. He could be burning down the establishment or fighting evil in their own house. He could be that man in every other anime I watched as a kid who just didn't play by the rules but always meant well and tried his best. Plenty of shounen heroes trained under strict disciplines and still fought dirty and meant well.
And plenty of class can have a strict discipline in their background and become that guy who fights dirty and still play by the rules. The fluff of paladins is just not suited to that concept.
Your sorta did. You said that chaotic and neutrals aren't capable of being a paladin becuase of it. A chaotic good character might fight to the last gasping breath for freedom and might have worked his whole love of his people while practicing sword and magic to protect his people. He can still worship, there are plenty of chaotic gods who embody the ideals of chaos and have worshippers. I think a chaotic character can spend his time preparing to take down the establishment or whatever his goals are. I don't see how these characters don't have dedication and endurance.
And once again i beg your pardon for not using proper wording. Yes, they have the dedication and endurance to fight to the last gasping breath, to master sword and magic, the devotion to a god and so on. But they don't have the endurance and devotion and dedication (and they shouldn't even have the interest) to become the "ultimate example of good and virtues in mortal world"...
On a totally unrelated note i don't think a CG sacred warrior of a CG deity should have a code, or the deity must have some issues... I think the god would be more like "You know what i like and don't like. Go and make me proud."
I didn't know Paladins had to graduate from Paladin school. If they have to go through all those hoops, can you explain to me how fighters learn to discipline themselves with swords beyond all others or clerics can spend all their time praying and becoming closer to the divine and wizards in spell books without being lawful? Are they less disciplined by such a great divide? How about anti-paladins?
You should need training to become a paladin, just as you need training to become anything else. If you just need a sword, an armor, and holy simbol to say "Now i'm a paladin, i can smite" the fluff really is awful. Anyway there are training facilities in Vigil, Lastwall for sure and i'm also pretty sure it's not a course where you just need participation to succed.
Also a fighter needs the discipline to become master of swords beyond all other and then, he doesn't need the discipline to become the paragon of virtue everyone (fighter and non fighter) should look up to. They can strive for it, but it shouldn't be their reason to live. Same goes for wizard. A paladin need the mastery of sword of a warrior, the devotion of a priest and the ideals of a saint... I think that you need to be pretty lawful to be willing to make all the sacrifices required.
Anti-paladins... I need you to be more specific on the question... They are sociopaths that aim to spoil and ruin everything, material and abstract. Their objective is pretty CE, so why shouldn't they be?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TittoPaolo210, your mindset is exactly why Malachi and I would prefer an official lift on the alignment restriction. Your characterization of a paladin that doesn't fit your image of exactly how a paladin should behave as "cheating to get the powers" leaves some players like Malachi feeling ashamed of their desire to play one and unwilling to even ask their GM to waive the restriction.
Just because it doesn't fit with your idea of a paladin doesn't mean it's nonsensical or even against current RAW. There's way too much disagreement over the specifics of paladin conduct for that - people arguing over whether a paladin can use coup de grace, whether it's OK to execute a creature solely due to evil alignment, whether using deceptive language without technically lying is acceptable, whether a paladin is expected to take on a suicidal challenge if there's the slimmest chance it will save an innocent.
For example: i can totally see a CG character taking part in acts terrorism, aimed to specifically avoid victims, to overthrow an evil slaver government... but i can't see a paladin doing even that kind of terrorism, even for a greater good, because the paladin knows that the aim sometimes can't justify the means and he should find other ways because terrorism is not an exemplar one.
I can totally see a LG character turning over revolutionaries for execution by the evil slaver government... but I can't see a paladin committing that sort of betrayal. Some CG characters will perform acts that a paladin shouldn't. But some LG characters will also perform acts that a paladin shouldn't, so that argument is meaningless.
Personally, I also can't see a paladin tolerating a demon lord possessing heroes and making them watch helplessly as their body kills their loved ones. But Iomedae dropped the ball on that one and left Desna to kill off Aolar.
And that's the flavour of the paladin, and that's what people arguing "paladins are only LG" feel. You can't conceive a class that aims to become an "example of good and virtues" who's chaotic.
Why not? What about chaos is incompatible with good and virtue, and being an example to others? If anything a CG person would be more about being an example to others because their ethos doesn't permit them to force other people to be good - they have to inspire.
Paladins get their power because they have to BE the virtuous all around, not just because the follow some words on a paper (i suppose the code must be written somewhere... they should swear on it when they get ordained).
And CG people can equally be virtuous all around, so if it's not about following some set of words on paper what's the problem?
I'm not saying chaotic people don't have dedication, i'm saying they don't have the sufficient amount of endurance, discipline, dedication, devotion and so on to train for years under regimes of privations and sacrifice and meditation to qualify as a paladin, especially when they could be already out there beating bad guys.
1) Paladins are not required to train for years to become a paladin. They are classified as a "self-taught" class for purposes of starting age, meaning that they have less training than Clerics, Druids, and Wizards, all allowed to be Chaotic.
2) There is no indication anywhere in RAW that chaotics lack endurance, dedication, or devotion. Even if we accept discipline as a lawful trait (I personally think it's dubious but it's apparently the sole reason for the monk's alignment restriction), there's the well-established idea that alignments aren't straightjackets and someone exhibiting one lawful trait is not necessarily of lawful alignment.
3) Again starting on the premise that discipline is a lawful value, I find it unfair that you allow a lawful character to have an chaotic value like freedom, but do not allow a chaotic character to have a lawful value.
Second, the topic isn't chaotic paladins, since those can't exist. The topic has changed since the OP (I know, I wrote the OP) but the topic is not about something that cannot exist in the game.
You may argue it is about why they can't exist, or why the rule should change, but chaotic paladins don't exist in the ruleset, only in house rules.
They don't exist by the RAW definition of the class. That's different from saying they can't exist or shouldn't exist or even that they can't exist in the context of all the other RAW minus the lines "a paladin must be lawful good" and "a paladin must obey legitimate authority."
Care to comment on my demonstration that a PF chaotic person can submit to an authority?
I don't even know what we're talking about any more. I was giving several example of someone who's dedicated and courageous and fights for good but is chaotic. Thats what you asked for isn't it Titto? Then you tell me but thats not a paladin so it doesn't matter. I can't win if thats a viable arguement.
Anti-paladins are the anti-thesis of paladins. They are living embodiments of opposite things and are identical in every way except one is Chaotic Evil and the other is Lawful Good. They have their own orders even. How do they do what they do? Do they have no devoution, endurance, or dedication? They come with the same class features, but are chaotic in alignment. If they can have those powers... You see where this is going?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And that's the flavour of the paladin, and that's what people arguing "paladins are only LG" feel. You can't conceive a class that aims to become an "example of good and virtues" who's chaotic.Why not? What about chaos is incompatible with good and virtue, and being an example to others? If anything a CG person would be more about being an example to others because their ethos doesn't permit them to force other people to be good - they have to inspire
Man I can't wait until Champions of Purity comes out. Hopefully it'll help curb the "CG/NG can't be as Good as LG" meme.
Man I can't wait until Champions of Purity comes out. Hopefully it'll help curb the "CG/NG can't be as Good as LG" meme.And that's the flavour of the paladin, and that's what people arguing "paladins are only LG" feel. You can't conceive a class that aims to become an "example of good and virtues" who's chaotic.Why not? What about chaos is incompatible with good and virtue, and being an example to others? If anything a CG person would be more about being an example to others because their ethos doesn't permit them to force other people to be good - they have to inspire
Whats champions of purity?
|
|
Whats champions of purity?Man I can't wait until Champions of Purity comes out. Hopefully it'll help curb the "CG/NG can't be as Good as LG" meme.And that's the flavour of the paladin, and that's what people arguing "paladins are only LG" feel. You can't conceive a class that aims to become an "example of good and virtues" who's chaotic.Why not? What about chaos is incompatible with good and virtue, and being an example to others? If anything a CG person would be more about being an example to others because their ethos doesn't permit them to force other people to be good - they have to inspire
A practical godsend for Good characters of all stripes. :)
It's going to offer options for characters of all three good alignments options to play strongly Good-leaning characters. Stuff like good-oriented rage powers for people that want to play paladin-level Good barbarians and such.
<insert time here> is too long. Hope its not like my experience with BoED, and you never know, might doubly enforce the idea that LG is the only good. Especially for paladin...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Giving more options just helps make everyone happy. It doesn't spoil your idea of the way something is done because its still there in your head and possible, but more options allow other people and their ideas to coexist. Just saying that again.
Whats this thread about anyway?
TittoPaolo210, your mindset is exactly why Malachi and I would prefer an official lift on the alignment restriction. Your characterization of a paladin that doesn't fit your image of exactly how a paladin should behave as "cheating to get the powers" leaves some players like Malachi feeling ashamed of their desire to play one and unwilling to even ask their GM to waive the restriction.
That's simultaneously a good and a bad reason... But, why do you need so much a CG paladin when you can play that character concept with any class you have has no such restrictions? You want an archetype? An alternate class? Fine, but give me a concept that is not "exactly like a paladin just CG" because my only aswer would be "why? what kind of concept is that?"
Just because it doesn't fit with your idea of a paladin doesn't mean it's nonsensical or even against current RAW. There's way too much disagreement over the specifics of paladin conduct for that - people arguing over whether a paladin can use coup de grace, whether it's OK to execute a creature solely due to evil alignment, whether using deceptive language without technically lying is acceptable, whether a paladin is expected to take on a suicidal challenge if there's the slimmest chance it will save an innocent.
That seems more like the need of a clarification on the code, rather than the need to lift an alignment restriction.
I can totally see a LG character turning over revolutionaries for execution by the evil slaver government...
No... Just... No.
Personally, I also can't see a paladin tolerating a demon lord possessing heroes and making them watch helplessly as their body kills their loved ones. But Iomedae dropped the ball on that one and left Desna to kill off Aolar.
That's a pretty good point, actually... But maybe the same reason why Iomedae doesn't jump on every evil plane (i count at least 3) and starts swinging her sword at anything that moves and then at everything that doesn't move? Maybe because a war would create far more victims (on the planes, so billions of billions of souls gone once and for all) in exchange for 5 or 6 new souls on the plane they are assigned? I don't know, you could say these are good answers or bad answers, i don't know. But i need to ask you why good gods still permits demon and devils and daemons to exist, then.
Why not? What about chaos is incompatible with good and virtue, and being an example to others? If anything a CG person would be more about being an example to others because their ethos doesn't permit them to force other people to be good - they have to inspire.
And CG people can equally be virtuous all around, so if it's not about following some set of words on paper what's the problem?
It's not that chaos and good are incompatible, it's that chaotic people make a mess most of the time. Look at Desna, she almost started a planar war (you know the entity of the damage a similar event would have caused?) just because he wanted to avenge the life of his favourite pet and his relatives. And you can't have a paragon of virtue make that kind of mess.
1) Paladins are not required to train for years to become a paladin. They are classified as a "self-taught" class for purposes of starting age, meaning that they have less training than Clerics, Druids, and Wizards, all allowed to be Chaotic.
2) There is no indication anywhere in RAW that chaotics lack endurance, dedication, or devotion. Even if we accept discipline as a lawful trait (I personally think it's dubious but it's apparently the sole reason for the monk's alignment restriction), there's the well-established idea that alignments aren't straightjackets and someone exhibiting one lawful trait is not necessarily of lawful alignment.
3) Again starting on the premise that discipline is a lawful value, I find it unfair that you allow a lawful character to have an chaotic value like freedom, but do not allow a chaotic character to have a lawful value.
1) So does a fighter. Do you really believe that everyone, taking up a sword and an armor, can be considered what being a fighter implies?
2)Till the point of monks stays, the paladin point stays. It's one of the problems of alignment sistem. We can push to eliminate it completely, or houserule it away, as some people do.
3)
"For a Paladin, True Freedom is found by honoring the precepts of law and good. They ensure a level playing field and a society that treats all it's citizens justly.
They would argue that chaos leads to a dictatorship of the strong, which is hardly free at all. Or the anarchy of disunion which is not the same as freedom.
In other words, Freedom is not the exclusive property of the Chaotic alignments. Nor does Chaos guarantee freedom."
Thank you for saving me time, LazarX.
Anti-paladins are the anti-thesis of paladins. They are living embodiments of opposite things and are identical in every way except one is Chaotic Evil and the other is Lawful Good. They have their own orders even. How do they do what they do? Do they have no devoution, endurance, or dedication? They come with the same class features, but are chaotic in alignment. If they can have those powers... You see where this is going?
Hey, that's a pretty good loop-hole, i must admit that i'm beaten on this one... But they are born fluff wise as the exact opposite of the paladin, just as i'm saying from the start that a CG paladin that has a reason to be, a REAL reson to be, should be accepted. And to quote myself at the start of this post:
[...]give me a concept that is not "exactly like a paladin just CG" because my only aswer would be "why? what kind of concept is that?"
You don't need to cheat. You can play a paladin anytime you want. No cheating required.
Yeah, that's the point. Why removing the fluff from a concept when all you need to play it is just writing down LG?
Whats this thread about anyway?
I think it's bunnies.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don’t have to be a holy warrior to be a true hero. Join in the fight against evil and be a paragon of righteousness as a character of any class with Pathfinder Player Companion: Champions of Purity.
So, you can be a Champion of Goodnes as an alchemist, barbarian, bard, cavalier, cleric, druid, fighter, gunslinger, inquisitor, monk, oracle, paladin, ranger, rogue, sorcerer, summoner, witch, and/or wizard.
You can be Chaotic Good with any of those, except druid, monk, and paladin.
Strange how the "expanded options" crowd never argues for LG druids and barbarians...
I think chaotics can totally be dedicated.
This is pretty much the disconnect between sides, here. You don't differentiate in any significant way between Lawful and Chaotic. For you, Chaotic means nothing more than (Lawful + Hates Tyranny/Slavery).
There's no downside to Chaotic for you. It has all the benefits of being Lawful, plus more options. But, the designers of the game were more practical and balanced. "Freedom, adaptability, and flexibility" also means "recklessness, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility."
Yeah, that's the point. Why removing the fluff from a concept when all you need to play it is just writing down LG?
Who's advocating removing fluff? Fluff is what you make of it anyway.
The big thing to gain from alternate paladin codes/archetypes/options is that it becomes much harder to fall and you let people play their own idea of what a paladin is much easier. You get good guys who aren't bound by an insane alignment straightjacket and muzzle. It also becomes way harder for a DM to make you fall if you can be chaotic now and then.
You also get less insane people enforcing their idea of what something should be on you. When things look like they have a certain way to be done and only one way you tend to have that a lot. Could you imagine someone saying their idea of a paladin was the only way, RAW, and then pushing it on you and refuting any ideas you have?
I know you keep saying its okay if we play something else, but not all GMs are actually okay with that. Opening up a RAW way to do something destroys none of that old fluff and gives the wiggle room you need.
I said alot of the same thing just now didn't I?
Strange how the "expanded options" crowd never argues for LG druids and barbarians...
I think arbitrary alignment restrictions are stupid all across the board, actually.
The only one I like is the Cleric's "must be within a step of your deity" thing since it makes sense as a balancing factor since different gods have different domains, and even then the Cleric can just go deity-less.
I don't like the "no metal armor" thing for Druids either. Mostly because it doesn't make sense at all logically.
There's no downside to Chaotic for you. It has all the benefits of being Lawful, plus more options. But, the designers of the game were more practical and balanced. "Freedom, adaptability, and flexibility" also means "recklessness, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility."
Read it again.
CAN include any of those things, not all of them.
I think chaotics can totally be dedicated.This is pretty much the disconnect between sides, here. You don't differentiate in any significant way between Lawful and Chaotic. For you, Chaotic means nothing more than (Lawful + Hates Tyranny/Slavery).
There's no downside to Chaotic for you. It has all the benefits of being Lawful, plus more options. But, the designers of the game were more practical and balanced. "Freedom, adaptability, and flexibility" also means "recklessness, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility."
Are you telling me what I think and feel? My mind is mine. Phrase it like your asking me what I think, but don't tell me what I think please. Its impossible to know what I think without asking, and even then words do not describe such things so well.
There is a downside, its being chaotic and being prone to breaking the rules when the time arises. Recklessness and sometimes a thoughtless irresponcibility is a part of that. I do not deny these things. I gave you one sentence and you get all this out of it? My Chaotic characters are much more prone to breaking the laws. The only time I hate doing it is when I'm being watched. That would be stupid to break the law in front of the town gaurds, unless I had a good way to get away with it anyway.
I don't like alignment restrictions at all. What are the benefits of being lawful then, eh? Do I get superpowers for being lawful? Do I get superpowers for being chaotic? Only alignment restrictions create superpowers for being an alignment.
|
|
Man I can't wait until Champions of Purity comes out. Hopefully it'll help curb the "CG/NG can't be as Good as LG" meme.And that's the flavour of the paladin, and that's what people arguing "paladins are only LG" feel. You can't conceive a class that aims to become an "example of good and virtues" who's chaotic.Why not? What about chaos is incompatible with good and virtue, and being an example to others? If anything a CG person would be more about being an example to others because their ethos doesn't permit them to force other people to be good - they have to inspire
The one that doesn't exist and has nothing to do with the topic.
"Not be as good" isn't what we are saying.
Not be a Paladin is what we are saying.
Be a Chevalier, great! Be a Barbarian, great! Be a Paladin, no.
|
|
Strange how the "expanded options" crowd never argues for LG druids and barbarians...I think arbitrary alignment restrictions are stupid all across the board, actually.
The only one I like is the Cleric's "must be within a step of your deity" thing since it makes sense as a balancing factor since different gods have different domains, and even then the Cleric can just go deity-less.
I don't like the "no metal armor" thing for Druids either. Mostly because it doesn't make sense at all logically.
There's no downside to Chaotic for you. It has all the benefits of being Lawful, plus more options. But, the designers of the game were more practical and balanced. "Freedom, adaptability, and flexibility" also means "recklessness, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility."Read it again.
CAN include any of those things, not all of them.
If the alignments have no actual meaning or definition, why does your side of the argument care.
In the conception of your side of the argument, it seems you can be Chaotic/Lawful...
|
|
Two posts again.
Alignment and alignment restrictions, general issues:
Man I can't wait until Champions of Purity comes out. Hopefully it'll help curb the "CG/NG can't be as Good as LG" meme.Whats champions of purity?A practical godsend for Good characters of all stripes. :)
It's going to offer options for characters of all three good alignments options to play strongly Good-leaning characters. Stuff like good-oriented rage powers for people that want to play paladin-level Good barbarians and such.
Just in time for my LG Barbarian!
2)Till the point of monks stays, the paladin point stays. It's one of the problems of alignment sistem. We can push to eliminate it completely, or houserule it away, as some people do.
Kay. Let's get rid of both restrictions at the same time. The monk restriction is at least as unnecessary as the paladin's.
Strange how the "expanded options" crowd never argues for LG druids and barbarians...
Have you been paying attention? I am set to play a LG Barbarian for the next campaign I'm a player in. I've repeatedly said that this “nature is balanced” thing is arbitrary and that it doesn't make sense to disallow a LG druid when Erastil is LG. I also dislike lawful-only monks.
There's no downside to Chaotic for you. It has all the benefits of being Lawful, plus more options. But, the designers of the game were more practical and balanced. "Freedom, adaptability, and flexibility" also means "recklessness, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility."
And lawfulness also means “closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability. ” Should all LG paladins be required to be closed-minded and self-righteous? Because I kind of figured that they considered humility a virtue. But if the downsides of Chaos are mandatory, so are the downsides of Law.
I can totally see a LG character turning over revolutionaries for execution by the evil slaver government...No... Just... No.
Sure. The revolutionaries are causing excessive disorder and worse, are giving the abolitionist cause a bad name through their radical and unsavoury tactics. The LG character doesn't support slavery of course, but he thinks that the revolutionaries are doing more harm than good. You need to achieve freedom the right way. And of course the revolutionaries knew that they were risking their lives in this endeavor and were prepared to make this sacrifice – in fact, now they become martyrs, exposing the evils of the government to those who have the means to bring about lawful change!
I don't think it's the right thing to do, and I'd consider it an evil act, but LG characters who are not paladins can commit the occasional evil act. And I can absolutely imagine someone who values order and lawful conduct as an inherent good thinking themselves justified in this action, even if they might find it regretful.
Personally, I also can't see a paladin tolerating a demon lord possessing heroes and making them watch helplessly as their body kills their loved ones. But Iomedae dropped the ball on that one and left Desna to kill off Aolar.That's a pretty good point, actually... But maybe the same reason why Iomedae doesn't jump on every evil plane (i count at least 3) and starts swinging her sword at anything that moves and then at everything that doesn't move? Maybe because a war would create far more victims (on the planes, so billions of billions of souls gone once and for all) in exchange for 5 or 6 new souls on the plane they are assigned? I don't know, you could say these are good answers or bad answers, i don't know. But i need to ask you why good gods still permits demon and devils and daemons to exist, then.
So it's permissible for the goddess of paladins to allow an evil for the sake of the greater good?
It's not that chaos and good are incompatible, it's that chaotic people make a mess most of the time. Look at Desna, she almost started a planar war (you know the entity of the damage a similar event would have caused?) just because he wanted to avenge the life of his favourite pet and his relatives. And you can't have a paragon of virtue make that kind of mess.
And then another chaotic goddess (Callistra) went and caused enough confusion in the enemy's ranks through trickery that the planar war fell apart. What were the lawful deities doing in this time? Blaming Desna? Throwing up their hands and saying “effed if I know”?
End result: mess?
No, end result: things improved by the actions of two chaotic deities.
"For a Paladin, True Freedom is found by honoring the precepts of law and good. They ensure a level playing field and a society that treats all it's citizens justly.
They would argue that chaos leads to a dictatorship of the strong, which is hardly free at all. Or the anarchy of disunion which is not the same as freedom.
In other words, Freedom is not the exclusive property of the Chaotic alignments. Nor does Chaos guarantee freedom."
Translation: Law gets all the good stuff, including the stuff integrally associated with chaos (like freedom), but Chaos doesn't get the good stuff that's even peripherally associated with law (like self-discipline).
If lawfulness can include a desire for freedom, chaos can include a capacity for discipline. Otherwise you are arguing that Law is objectively better than chaos.
Now, a LG paladin can argue that Law is objectively better than chaos and that's a pretty good representation of how that argument would go. But the two-axis alignment system isn't supposed to work that way.
|
|
Background and character concepts, Re: Paladins
1) So does a fighter. Do you really believe that everyone, taking up a sword and an armor, can be considered what being a fighter implies?
No, but a fighter doesn't have to go to a special school for years under harsh conditions and strict external discipline to learn to be a fighter. He can gain his experience as a youth being instructed by a relative or family friend, or in the military himself from direct experience in combat, or in the “school of hard knocks” but with a different talent set than the rogue, or he can be self-taught from years of fighting with bigger siblings and/or observation of more competent fighters and military members. There generally has to be some learning period or training between “picked up a sword” and “1st level fighter” but the exact nature of it is up to the player, as long as it makes some amount of sense within the campaign. And I think the GM is rare who would disallow a character of the fighter class on the grounds that his background didn't specify a Bachelor's degree from Fighter College.
So if a player says “I want to play a militia member who when defending her town against orcs swore an oath of service to Iomedae in exchange for the strength to save her town, and was suddenly filled with the power of a paladin” I say “Sure.” I don't say “Sorry, you need to go to paladin college for that.”
That's simultaneously a good and a bad reason... But, why do you need so much a CG paladin when you can play that character concept with any class you have has no such restrictions? You want an archetype? An alternate class? Fine, but give me a concept that is not "exactly like a paladin just CG" because my only answer would be "why? what kind of concept is that?"
I don't want an archetype or alternate class. I think that would be an acceptable compromise if you just can't bring yourself to let a CG person share paladin powers (I don't even need to share the title! You can keep your title if it means that much to you! I'll call the rest “champions”!), but I see absolutely no reason why the umbrella of “paladin” shouldn't include chaotic characters as-is. We don't need a special “liberator” class to imagine a CG paladin. We are already doing it on this thread. One example of a CG paladin concept – one which does not require an alternate class is - “a soldier who witnessed a lawful military condone a great evil and thus rejected hierarchy and force of law as a means for good, instead devoting herself to the church and to protecting those who the law has abandoned.”
And the reason that other classes won't do is that there isn't another class that can properly portray a charismatic divine warrior with only a little spellcasting. Oracles get too much spellcasting (and a built-in curse, which is difficult to incorporate into this concept) , and all other divine casters are Wis-based. Multiclassing or prestige classes are possible, but usually inferior options in PF, and really, why should people building a CG charismatic divine warrior have to jump though hoops that people building a LG charismatic divine warrior don't have to jump through?
That seems more like the need of a clarification on the code, rather than the need to lift an alignment restriction.
Thus taking even more choices away from players and GMs and forcing them to play your version of a paladin or go out of their way to change it.
Yeah, that's the point. Why removing the fluff from a concept when all you need to play it is just writing down LG?
Because that character I mentioned above, and who I had the honour of playing alongside, who actually believes that Law is not good by definition, and that an orderly system is not the best way to protect the weak, should not be described as LG.
However, due to her self-sacrificing nature, her true commitment to good even when it isn't easy, her refusal to compromise her ideals, her desire to always do the right thing the right way, and her adherence to a strict personal code that promotes goodness (including not dealing lethal damage to a humanoid foe) she deserves to be – and is best described as – a Paladin.
|
|
Man I can't wait until Champions of Purity comes out. Hopefully it'll help curb the "CG/NG can't be as Good as LG" meme.And that's the flavour of the paladin, and that's what people arguing "paladins are only LG" feel. You can't conceive a class that aims to become an "example of good and virtues" who's chaotic.Why not? What about chaos is incompatible with good and virtue, and being an example to others? If anything a CG person would be more about being an example to others because their ethos doesn't permit them to force other people to be good - they have to inspireThe one that doesn't exist and has nothing to do with the topic.
"Not be as good" isn't what we are saying.
No, that's exactly what's being said here:
And that's the flavour of the paladin, and that's what people arguing "paladins are only LG" feel. You can't conceive a class that aims to become an "example of good and virtues" who's chaotic.
Being an example of good and virtue is not inherently lawful or anti-chaotic.
If the alignments have no actual meaning or definition, why does your side of the argument care.
In the conception of your side of the argument, it seems you can be Chaotic/Lawful...
Alignments are more guidelines than anything else. They have some solid points and some flexible bits.
The solid points (somewhat ironically) of Chaotic are "Freedom, adaptability, and flexibility" above all else. These are the things that define Chaotic alignments in regards to their willingness to follow laws and/or codes. The freedom to choose their own path, whether that be to follow a Code of their own making or someone else' they happen to agree with.
The flexible bits are the "recklessness, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility." Not every Chaotic person is a reckless, irresponsible, inconsistent moron who can't decide where his loyalties lie from day to day. These are things a Chaotic person CAN be, but not something they universally are.
Same with Lawful. Lawful people are generally "honorable, trustworthy, obedient to authority, and reliable". That's the core of the Lawful side of alignment, what defines it.
The flexible bits are the "closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability." Not every Lawful person is a close minded, inflexible, self-righteous ass. That is something a Lawful person CAN be, not what they universally are.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins always get the attention.
We of the League of Infernal Teddies are sick of all this talk of paladins and Lawful Good. We are doing everything in our cuddly ways to lure paladins off the Lawful Good path or just eradicate them for all time.
We have the best interests of the Paizo messageboards at heart.
(I lie, we're filled with thoroughly evil stuffing and have no need your weak, stupid blood bumping hearts... except for Thursdays, when we sacrifice to Asmodeus!)
|
|
Man I can't wait until Champions of Purity comes out. Hopefully it'll help curb the "CG/NG can't be as Good as LG" meme.And that's the flavour of the paladin, and that's what people arguing "paladins are only LG" feel. You can't conceive a class that aims to become an "example of good and virtues" who's chaotic.Why not? What about chaos is incompatible with good and virtue, and being an example to others? If anything a CG person would be more about being an example to others because their ethos doesn't permit them to force other people to be good - they have to inspireThe one that doesn't exist and has nothing to do with the topic.
"Not be as good" isn't what we are saying.
No, that's exactly what's being said here:
And that's the flavour of the paladin, and that's what people arguing "paladins are only LG" feel. You can't conceive a class that aims to become an "example of good and virtues" who's chaotic.Being an example of good and virtue is not inherently lawful or anti-chaotic.
He's wrong if he is implying Chaotic Good is less good. He is correct if he is saying Chaotic is not Lawful. And he is correct if he is saying Paladins are by definition, Lawful.
|
|
If the alignments have no actual meaning or definition, why does your side of the argument care.
In the conception of your side of the argument, it seems you can be Chaotic/Lawful...
Alignments are more guidelines than anything else. They have some solid points and some flexible bits.
The solid points (somewhat ironically) of Chaotic are "Freedom, adaptability, and flexibility" above all else. These are the things that define Chaotic alignments in regards to their willingness to follow laws and/or codes. The freedom to choose their own path, whether that be to follow a Code of their own making or someone else' they happen to agree with.
You aren't following your own path if you are following someone else's code, and if someone else is telling you if you are doing it right or wrong, you are following someone else's code.
"Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it."
If someone is telling you if you are doing the code right, they are telling you what to do.
What part of this do you disagree with.
If the alignments have no actual meaning or definition, why does your side of the argument care.
In the conception of your side of the argument, it seems you can be Chaotic/Lawful...
Alignments are more guidelines than anything else. They have some solid points and some flexible bits.
The solid points (somewhat ironically) of Chaotic are "Freedom, adaptability, and flexibility" above all else. These are the things that define Chaotic alignments in regards to their willingness to follow laws and/or codes. The freedom to choose their own path, whether that be to follow a Code of their own making or someone else' they happen to agree with.
You aren't following your own path if you are following someone else's code, and if someone else is telling you if you are doing it right or wrong, you are following someone else's code.
"Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it."
If someone is telling you if you are doing the code right, they are telling you what to do.
What part of this do you disagree with.
So a chaotic person would only be happy if he got the powers whether or not the person giving the power was satisfied with his performance or not, and philosophically, he thinks the deity should have to give them to him no matter what? They come to a mutual agreement where the patron provides the powers as long as he is satisfied with the performance ... And will take them back if he isn't. You saying that a chaotic good person never takes out a loan with terms?
|
|
If the alignments have no actual meaning or definition, why does your side of the argument care.
In the conception of your side of the argument, it seems you can be Chaotic/Lawful...
Alignments are more guidelines than anything else. They have some solid points and some flexible bits.
The solid points (somewhat ironically) of Chaotic are "Freedom, adaptability, and flexibility" above all else. These are the things that define Chaotic alignments in regards to their willingness to follow laws and/or codes. The freedom to choose their own path, whether that be to follow a Code of their own making or someone else' they happen to agree with.
You aren't following your own path if you are following someone else's code, and if someone else is telling you if you are doing it right or wrong, you are following someone else's code.
"Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it."
If someone is telling you if you are doing the code right, they are telling you what to do.
What part of this do you disagree with.
So a chaotic person would only be happy if he got the powers whether or not the person giving the power was satisfied with his performance or not, and philosophically, he thinks the deity should have to give them to him no matter what? They come to a mutual agreement where the patron provides the powers as long as he is satisfied with the performance ... And will take them back if he isn't. You saying that a chaotic good person never takes out a loan with terms?
You view becoming a Paladin as taking out a loan of power?
Do they also try and refinace for a lower rate from another God?
You become a Paladin to become a paragon of a belief system, embodied by a code of ethics, not because of your credit score.
Alignments are more guidelines than anything else. They have some solid points and some flexible bits.
The solid points (somewhat ironically) of Chaotic are "Freedom, adaptability, and flexibility" above all else.
The flexible bits are the "recklessness, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility."
I love it when people make my point for me!!
There's no downside to Chaotic for you.
AND in addition to all the benefits of Chaotic, they get to have all the benefits of Lawful (i.e. dedication, obedience to authority, responsibility, etc.), with none of the downsides!
Yes, Lawful people do tend towards being close-minded, reactionary, self-righteous, and rigid. That's part and parcel of the whole lawful gig. These traits may exist in greater or lesser proportion, depending on the character. But, you can't just decide to ignore them as if they didn't matter.
Chaotic =/= Lawful + Options
|
You aren't following your own path if you are following someone else's code, and if someone else is telling you if you are doing it right or wrong, you are following someone else's code.
"Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it."
If someone is telling you if you are doing the code right, they are telling you what to do.
What part of this do you disagree with.
Pretty much all of it is on very thin ice.
If you share values with someone, and you act according to your values, then you are also acting according to their values, without any sort of explicit approval required.
Submission is simply not essential to following a code. Nor is adjudication by another essential to being a paladin.